Tesla Motors revealed its all-electric Model S sedan last week in Los Angeles. At half the price of its Roadster model, which was $109,000, the Model S will be priced at $49,900 after tax credits ($57,400 before such credits). "After factoring in savings on gas," Tesla points out, that's "comparable to a $35,000 Ford sedan," the New York Times reports. A blog item from the Timesdescribes the Model S as "sleek, sporty and sexy."

Tesla hopes the price tag will come down to "less than $30,000," as the price "will presumably go down as the technology improves." They plan the manufactured version to get 300 miles to a single charge, with a 45-minute recharge time.

While the company has raised millions from private investors, they need still more to be able to set up a production plant, which they plan to do in Southern California. But, for the moment, they are waiting on federal loan programs, as the credit market has otherwise locked up, according to the Times.

In the meantime, Detroit's big three automakers are also asking for federal funds and, in advance of President Obama's announcement of plans for the auto-industry, he has reportedly demanded that GM's CEO step down. So let's add one plus one here...

From the Times:

Tesla hopes to receive one of two government loans it is seeking. One, a $250 million loan, would come from money Congress authorized in 2005 for clean energy projects. The first loan guarantee under the program was made to solar company Solyndra last week.

The second loan Tesla is seeking, $450 million, would come from $25 billion Congress authorized in 2007 for electric vehicle technologies.

The Energy Department has not granted any loans under that program and has been criticized for moving slowly. But the energy secretary, Steven Chu, has said he plans to distribute some of the money in coming weeks.

So, if the federal government is currently bailing out the Detroit automakers, who have refused (and/or failed) to bring an all-electric car to market since GM abandoned the very popular EV1 in the late 90's, for reasons still-unexplained, and since Tesla is waiting for federal loan guarantees, why not put two and two together and give them the loans, but require that they use Detroit plants to build the cars, in hopes of avoiding the layoffs of thousands of Big Three autoworkers?

And, we'll ask again, what the hell happened to the EV1? Who killed it and why? And why won't Congress or the White House find out for us before giving GM anything in bailout money?

Obama is set to unveil his plan for an auto industry rescue package on Monday, "based on recommendations from the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, headed by the Treasury Department," says Politico, who reports that the "surprise" announcement concerning Wagoner is due to his being "considered responsible for increasing GM's focus on trucks and SUVs—at the expense of the hybrids and fuel efficient cars that have become more popular in the last couple of years."

So, can we ask his replacement what happened to the EV1? And, in the meantime, since both GM and Tesla want government money and/or loan guarantees, can we use GM's factories and workers to build Tesla's Model S now? Please?

The entire approach to the economic meltdown is bass ackwards. The Geither "cash for trash" approach is doomed to failure. The economic $62 trillion sink hole created by credit default swaps is but a bottomless money pit. No nation, certainly not ours, can afford to absorb this speculative loss. Instead of bailouts and bonuses, those who created this financial catastrophe should bear the burden of their reckless, greed-driven speculations.

The wiser course would be for the government to purchase foreclosed homes at their current (depressed) market value, resell them under low, fixed-rate mortgages, and have the FDIC seize and restructure any remaining insolvent banks.

When it comes to the manufacture of automobiles, it makes no sense to bail out the people who "killed the electric car" as they outsourced much of their operations to India & China. Does it make any sense to loan $18 billion to GM when its common stock is worth slightly more than $3 billion.

It would make far more sense for the U.S. to simply buy GM, sell off its foreign holdings, convert its domestic plants to the manufacture of solar-aided, plug ins. Through a public-private partnership with a small company like Tesla Motors, perhaps the old GM plant in Van Nuys could be converted, manufacturing an affordable. all-electric plug-in that could be sold world wide.

Affordability would be greatly enhanced if, instead of "universal coverage," the Obama administration would listen to those advancing single-payer, which would eliminate the unnecessary parasites (for-profit carriers & HMOs) which account for 31% of our health care costs, as compared to administrative costs of 1% to 2% in single-payer countries. Our employer-based system provides not only costly add on to American-produced products but inefficient with some 47 million Americans uninsured and 18,000 who die each year simply because they lack coverage.

Yeah, I know. Direct government involvement sounds like socialism. So how's the capitalist system working for ordinary folks these days?

I would also LOVE to see one about 20% smaller, with a 100/150 mile range, and in the cost range of $30,000 _now_, on the "expensive" technology. That I would sell my 40 mpg diesel and take on more debt for. Not for $50,000.. Can't do it.

I would also LOVE to see them partner with Volkswagen and build "(bio)diesel pushers" for their electrics.. that is, they need to design _now_ a way for a "diesel engine with 2 drive tires" contraption to be _easily_ connected to the back of these pure electrics so that if someone needed to go 1,200 miles, they could hook up their (bio)diesel pusher (cost for just an engine and drive line shouldn't be more than $5,000 or so, perhaps rent it like a rental car?) and go. We already have drive by wire brakes and throttles; etc... this is cake and solves the "range" problem on electrics (under a lot of circumstances, but not all).

I want an electric, but I can't give up "car", nor can I take on a lot of debt at the moment. This needs to be cost effective (i.e. sub-compact and limited speed/range) to get people in to them _now_ so this can take off.